ADAMS GOLF: Settles With Zurich American Over IPO-Related Suit--------------------------------------------------------------On December 15, 2011, Adams Golf, Inc. (the "Company") enteredinto a Compromise Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the"Settlement Agreement") with Zurich American Insurance Company("ZAIC") to settle the Company's insurance coverage lawsuitagainst ZAIC, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the same date.

As previously disclosed, the lawsuit alleges, among other things,that ZAIC wrongfully declined coverage to the Company for a $5million layer of directors' and officers' liability insurance inconnection with the class action lawsuit arising out of theCompany's initial public offering.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, ZAIC has agreed to pay theCompany $7.65 million in cash no later than January 4, 2012. Inaddition, the Company has agreed to release and indemnify, andZAIC has agreed to release, the other and the other's affiliates,directors, officers and attorneys from any claims related to thelawsuit or the facts and circumstances at issue in the litigation.The Company's release and indemnification obligations areconditioned on receipt of the $7.65 million settlement payment,and ZAIC's release obligations are conditioned on the execution ofa joint dismissal of the lawsuit. Pursuant to the terms of thesettlement reached by the Company in the underlying class actionlawsuit, the Company is required to pay the class actionplaintiffs the first $1.25 million from the Company's recoveryagainst ZAIC in the coverage lawsuit.

AMARANTH ADVISORS: Judge Okays $6.6-Bil. Class Action Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Asjylyn Loder at Bloomberg News reports that a federal judgeapproved a $77.1 million settlement by Amaranth Advisors LLC, thehedge fund that collapsed in 2006 after losing $6.6 billion onnatural gas trades, of a class action lawsuit in which it wasaccused of market manipulation.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, in an order on Dec. 15,approved the agreement, which was filed two days earlier inManhattan federal court by plaintiff's attorney Christopher Lovellof Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP. The parties had reacheda tentative agreement in October. A hearing on final approval ofthe class action accord is scheduled for March 27.

In August 2009, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission announcedthat Greenwich, Connecticut-based Amaranth paid $7.5 million tosettle allegations that the hedge fund tried to manipulate naturalgas futures three years earlier.

The case is In Re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation, 07-06377, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York(Manhattan.)

ANZ: Maurice Blackburn Files Appeal in Bank Fee Class Action------------------------------------------------------------The Australian Associated Press reports that an appeal has beenlodged in a class action against ANZ over allegedly unlawful fees.

Justice Michelle Gordon ruled earlier this month that late feescharged by ANZ on credit cards could be characterized as a penaltyand may be legally unenforceable.

However, honor fees, dishonor fees, overlimit fees and non-paymentfees were not characterized as a penalty but as fees for servicesprovided by the bank, Justice Gordon ruled.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn said it had lodged appeal papers in theFederal Court in Melbourne on Dec. 22 against the ruling on honor,dishonor and overlimit fees.

They said they would seek leave for an appeal to be heard beforethe full bench of the Federal Court.

Maurice Blackburn said it would argue Justice Gordon should haveapplied a broader test of when a fee can be a penalty, which is atest that does not first need to establish a breach of contract.

A hearing should be heard in early 2012, the law firm said.

Maurice Blackburn recently launched proceedings against four otherbanks, including the other three major Australian lenders, alsorelating to fees and charges.

AUTOZONE INC: Still Face Wage and Hour Violations Suits-------------------------------------------------------AutoZone, Inc. is involved in various other legal proceedingsincidental to the conduct of its business, including severallawsuits containing class-action allegations in which theplaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried employeeswho allege various wage and hour violations and unlawfultermination practices. The Company does not currently believethat, either individually or in the aggregate, these matters willresult in liabilities material to the Company's financialcondition, results of operations or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 15,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended November 19, 2011.

BatteriesPlus has received five reports of exploding batteries.No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves RAYOVAC-branded replacement battery packsused with cordless power tools. "RAYOVAC," "NI-CD" and a partnumber beginning with "CTL" are printed in white lettering on theproduct. The battery packs were sold in voltages ranging between2.4 and 18 volts in various sizes and shapes. They were sold asreplacement batteries to the following brand tools: Black andDecker, Bosch, DeWalt, Makita, Milwaukee, Panasonic, Ryobi andSkil. Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and soldexclusively at BatteriesPlus retail stores nationwide and onlineat http://www.batteriesplus.com/between June 2008 and October 2011 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using and remove the batterypacks from cordless tools. Consumers can contact BatteriesPlusfor instructions on how to return the product for a store credit.For more information, contact BatteriesPlus toll-free at (877)856-3232 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central Time Mondaythrough Friday, or visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.batteriesplus.com/

C&D TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Delaware Action Still Pending------------------------------------------------------------Beginning on June 29, 2011, following the announcement onJune 16, 2011, by Angelo Gordon & Co., L.P. of its proposal toacquire the outstanding shares of common stock of C&DTechnologies, Inc., not owned by it or its affiliates for cash(the "Merger"), three putative stockholder class action lawsuitswere filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, referred to hereinas the "Delaware Actions," and another putative stockholder classaction lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas ofMontgomery County, Pennsylvania, referred to herein as the"Pennsylvania Action," challenging the proposed Merger. On August19, 2011, counsel to the plaintiffs in the Delaware Actionssubmitted a proposed order to the court seeking consolidation ofthe Delaware Actions into a single action, referred to herein asthe "Consolidated Delaware Action." On September 8, 2011, theDelaware Court of Chancery granted that request for consolidation.On October 11, 2011, an amended class action complaint was filedin the Consolidated Delaware Action, naming as defendants C&D,each current member of the C&D Board and Angel Holdings LLC("Acquiror"), an affiliate of Angelo Gordon & Co., L.P. On October25, a fourth class action complaint was filed in the DelawareCourt of Chancery. That action is subject to the Delaware Courtof Chancery's August 19 consolidation order governing theconsolidation of any related newly filed case with theConsolidated Delaware Action.

On October 26, 2011, a consolidated second amended class actioncomplaint was filed in the Consolidated Delaware Action. Theconsolidated second amended class action complaint asserts breachof fiduciary duty claims against the current members of the C&DBoard and Angelo Gordon & Co., L.P., and aiding and abettingbreach of fiduciary duty claims against C&D, Angelo Gordon & Co.,L.P., Acquiror and Merger Sub premised principally on allegationsthat: (i) the individual defendants and the Acquiror breachedtheir fiduciary duties under Delaware law because the MergerAgreement was executed without meaningful input from C&D's publicstockholders, (ii) the consideration the Acquiror is proposing toprovide to C&D's public stockholders for their Common Stock isinadequate, and (iii) the Form PRE 14C (filed by C&D onOctober 19, 2011) failed to disclose material information.Plaintiffs claim that the Form PRE 14C failed to disclose materialinformation about the selection and appointment of the members ofthe Special Committee of the Board of Directors formed to considerthe proposed merger (the "Special Committee"), the criteria usedto select the Special Committee's financial advisor (PerellaWeinberg), certain aspects of the financial analysis performed byPerella Weinberg, and the sale and negotiation process. In theirconsolidated second amended class action complaint, Plaintiffssought to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Merger (or ifthe Merger is consummated prior to any final judgment to rescindthe Merger or receive rescissory damages), a declaration thatdefendants have violated their fiduciary duties, and an orderdirecting defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtaina transaction that is in the best interests of the Company'sstockholders. Plaintiffs further requested the costs of theaction, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and such otherequitable relief as may be just and proper.

At the same time that the consolidated second amended class actioncomplaint was filed, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunctionto enjoin the Merger and for expedition of the proceedings. OnNovember 1, 2011, Defendants filed an opposition to Plaintiffs'request for expedited proceedings, arguing that Plaintiffs'disclosure claims were not colorable and did not provide a basisfor expedition. On November 3, 2011, the Delaware Court ofChancery denied Plaintiffs' motion for expedition of theproceedings. In light of the Court'sNovember 3, 2011 ruling, Plaintiffs have submitted a proposedamended order of consolidation and appointment of co-lead counsel.Pursuant to that proposed amended order, which defendants do notoppose, defendants shall answer or otherwise move with respect tothe consolidated second amended class action complaint within 45days of the closing of the Merger.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 15,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

CARDIONET INC: Settles "West Palm Beach" Suit for $7.25 Million---------------------------------------------------------------In a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission dated December 15, 2011, CardioNet, Inc. announced thatit has reached a preliminary agreement to settle the West PalmBeach Police Pension Fund putative class action litigation filedin California Superior Court, San Diego County, which assertedclaims against the Company for violations of Sections 11, 12 and15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company says the preliminary agreement must be documented andis subject to certain conditions, including court approval of afinal settlement agreement. The parties intend to file astipulation of settlement and joint motion for preliminaryapproval promptly. Under the terms of the preliminary agreement,in consideration for the settlement and release of all defendants,the amount of $7.25 million will be paid by or on behalf of thedefendants (of which management expects approximately $6 millionwill be covered by insurance).

Joe Capper, President and Chief Executive Officer, stated in astatement announcing the settlement: "We are pleased to havereached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter and view itas a positive result for the Company. The settlement, onceapproved by the Superior Court, will eliminate uncertainties andexpenses associated with this litigation. With the removal ofthis unnecessary drain on resources, the Company is betterpositioned to implement its previously announced strategicinitiatives."

CardioNet, Inc. -- http://www.cardionet.com/-- is a Delaware corporation that provides continuous, real-time ambulatoryoutpatient management solutions for monitoring relevant and timelyclinical information regarding an individual's health. InSeptember 1999, the Company began its focus on helping physiciansmore rapidly diagnose and more effectively manage therapy forpatients with cardiovascular disease. The Company begandeveloping its product platform in April 2000. The Company thenspent seven years developing a proprietary integrated patientmanagement platform that incorporates a wireless data transmissionnetwork, internally developed software, Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) cleared algorithms and medical devices, and a24-hour digital monitoring service center. The Company iscurrently focused on the diagnosis and monitoring of cardiacarrhythmias, or heart rhythm disorders, through its core MobileCardiac Outpatient Telemetry(TM), event and Holter services.

CKE RESTAURANTS: Continues to Face Employment Class Action Suits----------------------------------------------------------------CKE Restaurants, Inc. is currently involved in legal disputesrelated to employment claims, real estate claims and otherbusiness disputes. As of November 7, 2011, the Company's accruedliability for litigation contingencies with a probable likelihoodof loss was $2,225,000 with an expected range of losses from$2,225,000 to $10,400,000. With respect to employment matters,the Company's most significant legal disputes relate to employeemeal and rest break disputes, and wage and hour disputes. Severalpotential class action lawsuits have been filed in the State ofCalifornia, regarding such employment matters, each of which isseeking injunctive relief and monetary compensation on behalf ofcurrent and former employees.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against allclaims in these lawsuits; however, the Company is presently unableto predict the ultimate outcome of these actions. As of November7, 2011, the Company estimated the contingent liability of thoselosses related to litigation claims that are not accrued, but thatthe Company believes are reasonably possible to result in anadverse outcome and for which a range of loss can be reasonablyestimated, to be in the range of $2,555,000 to $12,780,000,according to the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterended November 7, 2011.

In addition, the Company is involved in legal matters where thelikelihood of loss has been judged to be reasonably possible, butfor which a range of the potential loss cannot be reasonablyestimated.

COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Accrued $96.2-Mil. Liability as of Oct. 31---------------------------------------------------------------Comverse Technology, Inc., had an accrued liability of $96.2million as of October 31, 2011, in connection with the $165million settlement of the lawsuits arising from the Company'sSpecial Committee investigation in 2006, according to theCompany's December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedOctober 31, 2011.

On March 14, 2006, CTI announced the creation of a SpecialCommittee of its Board of Directors (the "Special Committee")composed of outside directors to review CTI's historic stockoption grant practices and related accounting matters, including,but not limited to, the accuracy of the stated dates of optiongrants and whether all proper corporate procedures were followed.In November 2006, the Special Committee's investigation wasexpanded to other financial and accounting matters, including therecognition of revenue related to certain contracts, errors in therecording of certain deferred tax accounts, the misclassificationof certain expenses, the misuse of accounting reserves and themisstatement of backlog. The Special Committee issued its reporton January 28, 2008. Following the commencement of the SpecialCommittee's investigation, CTI, certain of its subsidiaries andsome of CTI's former directors and officers and a current directorwere named as defendants in several class and derivative actions,and CTI commenced direct actions against certain of its formerofficers and directors.

Petition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture

In July 2006, the U.S. Attorney filed a forfeiture action againstcertain accounts of Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, CTI's former Chairmanand Chief Executive Officer, that resulted in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District entering an order freezingapproximately $50.0 million of Mr. Alexander's assets. In orderto ensure that CTI receives the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozenaccounts, in July 2007, CTI filed with the U.S. Attorney aPetition for Remission of Civil Forfeiture requesting remission ofany funds forfeited by Mr. Alexander. The United States DistrictCourt entered an order on November 30, 2010, directing that theassets in such accounts be liquidated and remitted to CTI. Theprocess of liquidating such assets has been completed and theproceeds from the assets in such accounts have been transferred toa class action settlement fund in conjunction with the settlementsof the Direct Actions, the consolidated shareholder class actionand shareholder derivative actions. The agreement to settle theshareholder class action was approved by the court in which suchaction was pending on June 23, 2010. The agreement to settle thefederal and state derivative actions was approved by the courts inwhich such actions were pending on July 1, 2010, and September 23,2010, respectively.

Shareholder Class Action

Beginning on or about April 19, 2006, class action lawsuits werefiled by persons identifying themselves as CTI shareholders,purportedly on behalf of a class of CTI's shareholders whopurchased its publicly traded securities. Two actions were filedin the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York, and three actions were filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York. OnAugust 28, 2006, the actions pending in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York were transferred tothe United States District Court for the Eastern District of NewYork. A consolidated amended complaint under the caption In reComverse Technology, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 06-CV- 1825, was filedby the court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Menorah Group, on March 23,2007. The consolidated amended complaint was brought on behalf ofa purported class of CTI shareholders who purchased CTI's publiclytraded securities between April 30, 2001, and November 14, 2006.The complaint named CTI and certain of its former officers anddirectors as defendants and alleged, among other things,violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Actin connection with prior statements made by CTI with respect to,among other things, its accounting treatment of stock options.The action sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

The parties to this action entered into a settlement agreement onDecember 16, 2009, which was amended on June 19, 2010, andapproved by the court in which such action was pending onJune 23, 2010. The Company recorded a charge associated with thesettlement during the fiscal year ended January 31, 2007.

Settlement Agreements

On December 16, 2009, and December 17, 2009, CTI entered intoagreements to settle the consolidated shareholder class action andconsolidated shareholder derivative actions, respectively. Theagreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action wasamended on June 19, 2010. Pursuant to the amendment, CTI agreedto waive certain rights to terminate the settlement in exchangefor a deferral of the timing of scheduled payments of thesettlement consideration and the right to a credit (the "Opt-outCredit") in respect of a portion of the settlement funds thatwould have been payable to a class member that elected not toparticipate in and be bound by the settlement. In connection withsuch settlements, CTI dismissed its Direct Actions against Messrs.Alexander, Kreinberg and Sorin, who, in turn, dismissed anycounterclaims they filed against CTI.

As part of the settlement of the consolidated shareholder classaction, as amended, CTI agreed to make payments to a class actionsettlement fund in the aggregate amount of up to $165.0 millionthat were paid as follows:

* $1.0 million that was paid following the signing of the settlement agreement in December 2009;

* $17.9 million that was paid in July 2010 (representing an agreed $21.5 million payment less a holdback of $3.6 million in respect of the then anticipated Opt-out Credit);

* $30.0 million that was paid in May 2011;

* $20.0 million that was paid in October 2011; and

* $91.3 million (representing the remaining $92.5 million less the amount by which the Opt-out Credit exceeded the holdback) that was paid subsequent to October 31, 2011, of which $82.5 million was paid through the issuance of 12,462,236 shares of CTI's common stock and the remainder paid in cash.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if CTI received netcash proceeds from the sale of certain auction rate securities("ARS") held by it in an aggregate amount in excess of $50.0million, CTI was required to use $50.0 million of such proceeds toprepay the settlement amounts and, if CTI received net cashproceeds from the sale of such ARS in an aggregate amount inexcess of $100.0 million, CTI was required to use an additional$50.0 million of such proceeds to prepay the settlement amounts.In addition, CTI granted a security interest for the benefit ofthe plaintiff class in the account in which CTI held its ARS(other than the ARS that were held in an account with UBS) and theproceeds from any sales thereof, restricting CTI's ability to usethe proceeds from sales of such ARS until the amounts payableunder the settlement agreement are paid in full. As ofOctober 31, 2011, and January 31, 2011, the Company had $14.1million and $33.4 million, respectively, of cash received fromsales and redemptions of ARS (including interest thereon) to whichthese provisions of the settlement agreement applied which wereclassified in "Restricted cash and bank time deposits" within thecondensed consolidated balance sheets. Following the payment byCTI of the remaining amounts payable under the settlementagreement, the security interest for the benefit of the plaintiffclass in the Company's account terminated.

In addition, as part of the settlements of the Direct Actions, theconsolidated shareholder class action and shareholder derivativeactions, Mr. Alexander agreed to pay $60.0 million to CTI to bedeposited into the derivative settlement fund and then transferredinto the class action settlement fund. All amounts payable by Mr.Alexander have been paid. Also, as part of the settlement of theshareholder derivative actions, Mr. Alexander transferred to CTIshares of Starhome B.V. representing 2.5% of its outstanding sharecapital.

Pursuant to the amendment, Mr. Alexander agreed to waive certainrights to terminate the settlement and received the right to acredit in respect of a portion of the settlement funds that wouldhave been payable to a class member that elected not toparticipate in and be bound by the settlement. CTI's settlementof claims against it in the class action was not contingent uponMr. Alexander satisfying his payment obligations. Certain otherdefendants in the Direct Actions and the shareholder derivativeactions have paid to CTI an aggregate of $1.4 million and certainformer directors relinquished certain outstanding unexercisedstock options. As part of the settlement of the shareholderderivative actions, CTI paid, in October 2010, $9.4 million tocover the legal fees and expenses of the plaintiffs. In September2010, CTI received insurance proceeds of $16.5 million under itsdirectors' and officers' insurance policies in connection with thesettlements of the shareholder derivative actions and theconsolidated shareholder class action.

Under the terms of the settlements, Mr. Alexander and his wiferelinquished their claims to the assets in Mr. Alexander's frozenaccounts that were subject to the forfeiture action, and theUnited States District Court entered an order on November 30,2010, directing that the assets in such accounts be liquidated andremitted to CTI. The process of liquidating such assets has beencompleted and the proceeds from the assets in such accounts havebeen transferred to the class action settlement fund.

The agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action,as amended, was approved by the court in which such action waspending on June 23, 2010. The agreement to settle the federal andstate derivative actions was approved by the courts in which suchactions were pending on July 1, 2010, andSeptember 23, 2010, respectively.

As of October 31, 2011, and January 31, 2011, the Company says ithad accrued liabilities for this matter of $96.2 million and$146.1 million, respectively.

COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Israeli Optionholder Class Actions Stayed--------------------------------------------------------------Class action lawsuits commenced in Israel remain stayed untilactions pending in the United States of America regarding stockoption accounting are resolved, according to Comverse Technology,Inc.'s December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedOctober 31, 2011.

CTI and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants infour potential class action litigations in the State of Israelinvolving claims to recover damages incurred as a result ofpurported negligence or breach of contract that allegedlyprevented certain current or former employees from exercisingcertain stock options. The Company says it intends to vigorouslydefend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI onMarch 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (CaseNumber 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recoverdamages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result ofCTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options bycertain employees and former employees. By stipulation of theparties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that thesecases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motionto approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of theactions pending in the United States regarding stock optionaccounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability toinvestigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses inthese cases. To date, the stay has not yet been lifted.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court byplaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both seek to approve classactions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurredas a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedlyprevented the exercise by certain employees and former employeesof certain CTI and Verint Systems stock options, respectively.The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed onMarch 16, 2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation(Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against VerintSystems Ltd. The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacksjurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel AvivDistrict Court. The Katriel case has been consolidated with theKatriel case filed in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number1334/09) and is subject to the stay. At the preliminary hearingin the Tel Aviv District Court in October 2011, the Deutsch casewas also made subject to the stay.

The Company did not accrue for these matters as the potential lossis currently not probable or estimable.

On September 28, 2010, an action was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of New York under thecaption Maverick Fund, L.D.C., et al. v. Comverse Technology,Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-4436. Plaintiffs alleged that they wereCTI shareholders who purchased CTI's publicly traded securities in2005, 2006 and 2007. The plaintiffs, Maverick Fund, L.D.C. andcertain affiliated investment funds, opted not to participate inthe settlement of a consolidated shareholder class action againstthe Company. The complaint named CTI, its former Chief ExecutiveOfficer and certain of its former officers and directors asdefendants and alleged, among other things, violations of Sections10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder, and negligent misrepresentation in connection withprior statements made by CTI with respect to, among other things,its accounting treatment of stock options, other accountingpractices at CTI and the timeline for CTI to become current in itsperiodic reporting obligations. The action sought compensatorydamages in an unspecified amount. The Company filed a motion todismiss the complaint in December 2010, and a hearing on themotion was conducted on March 4, 2011. On July 12, 2011, theCourt dismissed the plaintiffs' claims related to their purchaseof CTI's securities in 2007 and the claims against Andre Dahan,CTI's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and AviAronovitz, CTI's former Interim Chief Financial Officer, andotherwise denied CTI's motion to dismiss.

In December 2011, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle,pursuant to which CTI would be required to pay the plaintiffsapproximately $9.5 million. The Company recorded an additionalliability of $4.9 million in connection with this matter as ofOctober 31, 2011, representing the amount by which the anticipatedsettlement amount exceeds the Opt-out Credit and certain othercredits under the settlement agreement of the consolidatedshareholder class action.

COPART INC: Still Defends "Brizuela" Class Suit in California-------------------------------------------------------------On February 12, 2011, Jose E. Brizuela filed a lawsuit againstCopart, Inc. in Superior Court, San Bernardino County, SanBernardino District, which purports to be class action on behalfof persons employed by Copart paid on a hourly basis in Californiaat any time since the date four years prior to February 14, 2011.The complaint alleges failure to pay all earned wages due to analleged practice of rounding of hours worked to the detriment ofthe employees. Relief sought includes class certification,injunctive relief, unpaid wages, waiting time penalty-wages,interest, and attorney's fees and costs of lawsuit. The Companybelieves the claim is without merit and intends to continue tovigorously defend the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 12,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

The Company says it provides for costs relating to the matter whena loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.The effect of the outcome of the matter on the Company's futureresults of operations cannot be predicted because any such effectdepends on future results of operations and the amount and timingof the resolution of such matter. The Company believes that anyultimate liability will not have a material effect on itsconsolidated financial position, results of operations or cashflows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated withthese claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. Copartmaintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage forclaims made against the Company. There is no assurance that therewill be insurance coverage available when and if needed.Additionally, the insurance that Copart carries requires that theCompany pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount ofthe insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased.

COPART INC: Still Defends "Ortiz-Torres" Suit in California-----------------------------------------------------------On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed alawsuit against Copart, Inc. in Superior Court of San BernardinoCounty, San Bernardino District, which purported to be a classaction on behalf of persons employed by the Company in thepositions of facilities managers and assistant general managers inCalifornia at any time since the date four years prior toSeptember 21, 2010. The complaint alleges failure to pay wagesand overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and restbreaks, in violation of various California Labor and Business andProfessional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification offacilities managers and assistant general managers as exemptemployees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctiverelief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages,disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney's feesand costs, interest, and punitive damages. The Company believesthe claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorouslydefend the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 12,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

The Company says it provides for costs relating to the matter whena loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.The effect of the outcome of the matter on the Company's futureresults of operations cannot be predicted because any such effectdepends on future results of operations and the amount and timingof the resolution of such matter. The Company believes that anyultimate liability will not have a material effect on itsconsolidated financial position, results of operations or cashflows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated withthese claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. Copartmaintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage forclaims made against the Company. There is no assurance that therewill be insurance coverage available when and if needed.Additionally, the insurance that Copart carries requires that theCompany pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount ofthe insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased.

COVIDIEN PLC: Defends Suits vs. Unit Over Contrast Agent Products-----------------------------------------------------------------Covidien Public Limited Company is defending lawsuits involvingits subsidiary, which manufactures gadolinium-based contrastagents, according to the Company's November 23, 2011, Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thefiscal year ended September 30, 2011.

Mallinckrodt Inc., one of the Company's subsidiaries, is one offour manufacturers of gadolinium-based contrast agents involved inlitigation alleging that administration of these agents causesdevelopment of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, in a small number ofpatients with advanced renal impairment. The litigation includesa federal multi-district litigation in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Ohio and cases in various statecourts.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to thesecomplaints and is vigorously defending against them. Whenappropriate, the Company says it settles cases. As ofSeptember 30, 2011, there were 28 pending cases in which theplaintiff has either documented or specifically alleged use of theCompany's Optimark(TM) product. The Company says it no longerconsiders these legal proceedings to be material.

Covidien Public Limited Company develops, manufactures and sellshealthcare products for use in clinical and home settings. Itmanages and operates its business through the following threesegments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals, and Medical Supplies.The Company is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

COVIDIEN PLC: Records 137 Pending Cases Over Pelvic Mesh Product----------------------------------------------------------------Covidien Public Limited Company disclosed in its November 23,2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2011, thatthere are 137 pending cases that it believes involve productsmanufactured by its subsidiaries.

The Company is currently involved in litigation in various stateand federal courts against manufacturers of transvaginal pelvicmesh products alleging personal injuries resulting from theimplantation of those products. Two of the Company's subsidiarieshave supplied pelvic mesh product to one of the manufacturersnamed in the litigation and the Company is indemnifying thatmanufacturer on certain claims. The litigation includes a federalmulti-district litigation in the United States District Court forthe Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various statecourts.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to theseclaims and is vigorously defending against them. As ofSeptember 30, 2011, there were approximately 137 cases pendingbelieved to involve products manufactured by the Company'ssubsidiaries. During fiscal 2011, the Company recorded a chargeof $46 million for all known pending cases and estimated futureclaims, net of anticipated insurance recoveries. The Companybelieves that it has adequate amounts recorded relating to thesematters based on current information. While the Company believesthat the final disposition of all known claims, after taking intoaccount amounts already accrued and insurance coverage, will nothave a material adverse effect on its results of operations,financial condition or cash flows, it is not possible at this timeto determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these mattersor the effect of potential future claims.

Covidien Public Limited Company develops, manufactures and sellshealthcare products for use in clinical and home settings. Itmanages and operates its business through the following threesegments: Medical Devices, Pharmaceuticals, and Medical Supplies.The Company is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.

DEL MONTE: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Littlefield" Complaint-----------------------------------------------------------------Del Monte Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motionto dismiss a putative class action complaint filed by LydiaLittlefield, according to the Company's December 12, 2011, Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarter ended October 30, 2011.

On December 17, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filedagainst the Company by Lydia Littlefield, on behalf of herself andall others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Massachusetts, alleging intentional misrepresentation,fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty,breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjustenrichment. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Companyengaged in false and misleading representation of certain of theCompany's canned fruit products in representing that theseproducts are safe and healthy, when they allegedly containsubstances that are not safe and healthy. The plaintiffs seekcertification of the class, injunctive relief, damages in anunspecified amount and attorneys' fees. The Company intends todeny these allegations and vigorously defend itself.

On April 19, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation issued an order consolidating Littlefield with severalsimilar consumer class actions filed in other jurisdictions (inwhich the Company is not a defendant) in U.S. District Court forthe District of Massachusetts. On July 29, 2011, the Companyfiled a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. A hearing onthis motion was held November 18, 2011.

The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate arange of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

DEL MONTE: Court Approves $89.4-Mil. Merger-Related Suits Deal--------------------------------------------------------------A Delaware court entered an order and final judgment approving DelMonte Corporation's $89.4 million settlement of merger-relatedlawsuits, according to the Company's December 12, 2011, Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarter ended October 30, 2011.

On March 8, 2011, Del Monte Foods Company ("DMFC") was acquired byan investor group led by funds affiliated with Kohlberg KravisRoberts & Co. L.P. ("KKR"), Vestar Capital Partners ("Vestar") andCenterview Capital, L.P. ("Centerview," and together with KKR andVestar, the "Sponsors"). Under the terms of the merger agreement,DMFC's stockholders received $19.00 per share in cash. Theacquisition (also referred to as the "Merger") was effected by themerger of Blue Merger Sub Inc. ("Blue Sub") with and into DMFC,with DMFC being the surviving corporation. As a result of theMerger, DMFC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Blue AcquisitionGroup, Inc. ("Parent"). DMFC stockholders approved thetransaction on March 7, 2011. DMFC's common stock ceased tradingon the New York Stock Exchange before the opening of the market onMarch 9, 2011.

Del Monte Corporation ("DMC" or the "Company") was a direct,wholly-owned subsidiary of DMFC. On April 26, 2011, DMFC mergedwith and into DMC, with DMC being the surviving corporation. As aresult of this merger, DMC became a direct wholly-owned subsidiaryof Parent.

Following the announcement of the Merger, fifteen putative classaction lawsuits (the "Shareholder Cases") relating to theTransactions were filed against DMFC, certain of its now-formerofficers and directors, and other parties including (in certaincases) Blue Sub.

Two previously disclosed cases, which were among the originalfifteen Shareholder Cases arising from the Transactions, werevoluntarily dismissed on June 6, 2011:

* Heintz v. Wolford, et al. The Heintz case was filed by Sarah P. Heintz on behalf of herself and a putative class of shareholders against each of the now-former directors of DMFC (together, the "Directors"), DMFC, Parent and Blue Sub on December 20, 2010, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California; and

* Faulkner v. Wolford, et al. The Faulkner case was filed by Dallas Faulkner on behalf of himself and a putative class of shareholders against the Directors, DMFC, Parent and Blue Sub on January 21, 2011, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California.

In addition, plaintiffs in two other previously disclosed cases,which were also among the original fifteen Shareholder Casesarising from the Transactions, filed requests for dismissal onMarch 4, 2011, and June 13, 2011, respectively:

* Sinor v. Wolford, et al. The Sinor case was filed by James Sinor on behalf of himself and a putative class of shareholders against DMFC, the Directors, KKR, Vestar, Centerview (named as Centerview Partners; together with KKR and Vestar, the "Sponsor Defendants"), Parent and Blue Sub on December 1, 2010, in Superior Court in San Francisco, California; and

* Kaiman v. Del Monte Foods Co., et al. The Kaiman case was filed by Libby Kaiman on behalf of herself and a putative class of shareholders against DMFC, the Directors, the Sponsor Defendants, Parent and Blue Sub on December 1, 2010, in Superior Court in San Francisco, California.

As a result of the voluntary dismissals and orders consolidatingother shareholder cases, only two of the original fifteenShareholder Cases arising from the Transactions remained pendingas of October 30, 2011:

* In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholders Litigation (the "Delaware Shareholder Case"). The Delaware Shareholder Case was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and consolidated with other related cases filed in the same court. The latest complaint filed in the case asserted claims on behalf of lead Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Pension Fund and a putative class of shareholders against the Directors, DMFC's former Chief Executive Officer in his capacity as such, Barclays Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"), the Sponsor Defendants, Parent, Blue Sub and DMC, which was joined as a defendant in the litigation as successor in interest to DMFC (together, the "Defendants"); and

* Franklin v. Del Monte Foods Co., et al. The Franklin case was filed by Elisa J. Franklin on behalf of herself and a putative class of shareholders against the Directors, DMFC and the Sponsor Defendants on December 10, 2010, in Superior Court in San Francisco, California. On February 28, 2011, the Court in the Franklin case granted the motion of DMFC and the Directors to stay the proceeding pending resolution of the Delaware Shareholder Case.

The plaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder Case alleged that theDirectors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders byagreeing to sell DMFC at a price that was unfair and inadequateand by agreeing to certain preclusive deal protection devices inthe Merger Agreement. The plaintiff further alleged that theSponsor Defendants, Parent, Blue Sub and Barclays aided andabetted the Directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Inaddition, the plaintiff asserted a claim for breach of fiduciaryduty against the former Chief Executive Officer of DMFC in hiscapacity as an officer. The plaintiff also alleged that theSponsor Defendants violated certain Confidentiality Agreementswith DMFC, and that Barclays induced the Sponsor Defendants toviolate the Confidentiality Agreements, committing tortiousinterference with contract. The plaintiff in the Franklin caseasserted similar claims against the Directors, alleging that theybreached their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty by, amongother acts, agreeing to sell DMFC at an inadequate price, runningan ineffective sale process that relied on conflicted financialadvisors, agreeing to preclusive deal protection measures, andpursuing the transaction for their own financial ends. Theplaintiff in the Franklin case also asserted claims against theSponsor Defendants and DMFC for aiding and abetting these allegedbreaches of fiduciary duty.

Each of the complaints sought injunctive relief, rescission of theMerger Agreement, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees.

On February 14, 2011, following expedited discovery and apreliminary injunction hearing in the Delaware Shareholder Case,the Court of Chancery entered an order preliminarily enjoining theshareholder vote on the Merger, which was scheduled to occur at aspecial meeting on February 15, 2011, for a period of 20 days. Inaddition, the Court of Chancery enjoined the parties, pending thevote on the Merger, from enforcing various provisions in theMerger Agreement, including the no-solicitation and match rightprovisions in Sections 6.5(b), 6.5(c), and 6.5(h), and thetermination fee provisions relating to topping bids and changes inthe board of directors' recommendations on the Merger in Section8.5(b). The Court's order was conditioned upon the leadplaintiff's posting a bond in the amount of $1.2 million, whichwas posted on February 15, 2011.

The scheduled special meeting was convened on February 15, 2011.At such meeting, a quorum was determined to be present and, inaccordance with the Court's ruling, the meeting was adjourneduntil March 7, 2011, without a vote on the Merger proposal. Thespecial meeting was reconvened on March 7, 2011. At such meeting,a quorum was determined to be present and the Merger was approved.The Merger closed on March 8, 2011.

Following the closing of the Merger, on March 25, 2011, theplaintiff in the Delaware Shareholder Case filed an applicationfor an interim attorneys' fee award in the amount of $12 million.On June 27, 2011, the Court of Chancery awarded the plaintiff'sattorneys an interim fee award in the amount of $2.75 million forthe supplemental disclosures that DMFC made in connection with theMerger. The Court of Chancery deferred decision regarding thebalance of the fee application, which sought fees in connectionwith the preliminary injunction and suspension of dealprotections.

On July 27, 2011, the Court of Chancery issued an order adding theCompany as a defendant to the Delaware Shareholder Case andordering the Company to pay the $2.75 million interim attorney feeaward. The Company paid the $2.75 million interim fee award inAugust 2011.

On October 6, 2011, the lead plaintiff in the Delaware ShareholderCase and the Defendants submitted a Stipulation and Agreement ofCompromise and Settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery (the"Proposed Settlement").

On December 1, 2011, after settlement class members were givennotice of the Proposed Settlement and an opportunity to filewritten objections, the Court of Chancery conducted a fairnesshearing on the Proposed Settlement and entered an Order and FinalJudgment approving the Proposed Settlement (as approved, the"Settlement"). In approving the Settlement, the Court of Chancerycertified a mandatory, non-opt-out settlement class of certainformer shareholders of DMFC, and granted the Defendants a releasewhich extinguished all claims of the settlement class arising outof or relating to the Merger, including claims asserted in theFranklin case and all other Shareholder Cases, in exchange for atotal payment of $89.4 million (inclusive of $22.3 million of feesand expenses awarded to plaintiffs' counsel by the Court ofChancery and of costs of notifying the settlement class andadministering claims). In connection with the Settlement, theCompany agreed to pay $65.7 million into an escrow account to fundthe Settlement, consisting of (1) the financial contribution tothe Settlement and (2) the payment of previously unpaid Merger-related fees being contributed to the Settlement. On December 7,2011, the Company paid $65.5 million into the escrow account ($0.2million having previously been paid). As of October 30, 2011, theCompany had accrued in accounts payable and accrued expenses this$65.5 million. The Company says it entered into the Settlement toeliminate the uncertainties, burden, and expense of furtherlitigation. In the Settlement, the Company, together with theother Defendants, denied all allegations of wrongdoing, and theCourt of Chancery's Order and Final Judgment approving theSettlement provides that it does not constitute an admission ofwrongdoing by any Defendant.

The Order and Final Judgment approving the Settlement remainssubject to appeal. The parties have the right to terminate theSettlement if the judgment is modified or reversed in any materialrespect on appeal. There can be no guarantee that the Settlementwill not be modified or reversed upon appeal.

In the event of a successful appeal of the court's order approvingthe Settlement, the actual costs of resolving the ShareholderCases may be substantially higher or lower than the amount theCompany has paid to date. In such case, the amount that theCompany may ultimately be responsible for in connection with theShareholder Cases may vary based on a number of factors,including, final settlement or award amounts, the allocation ofsuch amounts among the various parties to the litigation,insurance coverage and resolution with its carriers,indemnification obligations, the discovery of new or additionalfacts that impact the strength or weakness of the parties' claimsand defenses and other factors. The Company cannot at this timereasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potentialliability in such case.

The Company disclosed that it has $50 million of director andofficer insurance coverage for the Company and the formerdirectors and officers of DMFC. The insurers have reserved theirrights with respect to coverage and have not agreed at this pointthat coverage is available for losses the Company has sustained asa result of the Shareholder Cases or the settlement in theDelaware Shareholder Case. Notwithstanding the Settlement, theCompany continues to have certain indemnification obligationsrelating to the Merger, including the obligation to pay certainoutstanding legal fees and expenses, subject to limitations underapplicable law or contract.

DEL MONTE: Still Defends FLSA-Violations Class Suit in Minnesota----------------------------------------------------------------On September 30, 2010, a putative class action complaint wasserved against Del Monte Corporation, to be filed in HennepinCounty, Minnesota, alleging wage and hour violations of the FairLabor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The complaint was served on behalfof five named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated at amanufacturing facility in Minnesota. Specifically, the complaintalleges that the Company violated the FLSA and state wage and hourlaws by failing to compensate plaintiffs and other similarlysituated workers unpaid overtime. The plaintiffs are seekingcompensatory and statutory damages. Additionally, the plaintiffssought class certification. On November 5, 2010, in connectionwith the Company's removal of this case to the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Minnesota, the complaint was filed along withthe Company's answer. The Company also filed a motion for partialdismissal on November 5, 2010. The parties jointly stipulatedthat the causes of action in plaintiff's complaint for unjustenrichment and quantum meruit would be dismissed without prejudiceand further stipulated that the cause of action under theMinnesota minimum wage law would be dismissed without prejudice.The court signed an order dismissing those claims on December 28,2010. The Company and the plaintiffs jointly stipulated to aconditional certification of the class onApril 28, 2011. The plaintiffs sent out notices to the potentialclass on April 28, 2011. The notice period is now closed, and 53plaintiffs have opted in to the lawsuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 12,2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarter ended October 30, 2011.

As of October 30, 2011, the Company says it has accrued an amountequal to the current estimate of its exposure in this matter.Given the inherent uncertainty associated with legal matters, theactual cost of resolving this putative class action may besubstantially higher or lower than the estimated accrual.

DISCOVER CARD: Faces TCPA-Violations Class Suit in California-------------------------------------------------------------Discover Financial Services is facing a class action lawsuit inCalifornia alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct, according to Discover Card Execution Note Trust's December15, 2011, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the monthly distribution periodNovember 1, 2011 to November 30, 2011.

On November 30, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed againstDiscover Financial Services by a Discover Bank cardmember in theU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California(Walter Bradley et al. v. Discover Financial Services). Theplaintiff alleges that Discover contacted him, and members of theclass he seeks to represent, on their cellular telephones withouttheir express consent in violation of the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory damages foralleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys'fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides forstatutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willfulviolations).

Discover Bank says it is not in a position at this time to assessthe likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to thismatter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all claimsasserted by the plaintiff.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Settle Class Action for $79 Million---------------------------------------------------------John McCrank, writing for Reuters, reports that E*Trade Financialand its insurers have agreed in principle to pay $79 million tosettle class action lawsuits brought against the online brokerageas a result of losses in its mortgage and home equity loansportfolio in 2007.

E*Trade was sued by investors who alleged the company violatedsecurities law and breached its fiduciary duty to shareholders inrelation to the massive losses it suffered following the collapseof the subprime mortgage market.

The company said the losses incurred were caused by a "worldwideeconomic catastrophe" and that the corporation did not break thelaw. It stuck by its position on Dec. 21.

"We continue to believe the claims are without merit," a companyspokesman said in a statement.

"We are committed to moving forward and executing management'sbusiness strategy, a part of which is to continue to remove theburdens placed on the company during the financial crisis. Welook forward to putting this matter behind us."

E*Trade's portion of the settlement payment is around $10.75million and will be reflected as an expense in the currentquarter.

The agreement in principle requires court approval to becomefinal. A definitive agreement is expected in the first quarter of2012.

FACEBOOK INC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a federaljudge has ushered forward a class action alleging that Facebookco-opts users as unpaid spokesmen for paid advertising andillegally profits when users sponsor products through "likes."The complaint alleges that Facebook violates California andfederal laws with its "Sponsored Stories" feature, which uses thenames, photos and other profile information of its members insponsored advertisements. The stories are triggered when members"like" a product or service, and the plaintiffs believe they areentitled to compensation under California law.

While Facebook's own policies state that users can limit how theirnames and personal information are used by Facebook, users aren'tallowed to completely opt out of the social network's commercialand sponsor-related content.

Pointing to its user terms of service as grounds for dismissal,Facebook claimed that it is immune from action as an "interactivecomputer service" and merely a conduit through which users passtheir own information to friends.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh disagreed, however, citing astatement from Facebook's own chief operating officer.

"Marketers have always known that the best recommendation comesfrom a friend," COO Sheryl Sandberg said, according to the court."Making your customers your marketers" is "the illusive goal we'vebeen searching for."

This evidence supports the plaintiffs' claim that "they have aright to be paid for their endorsements and can establish how muchthese endorsements are worth," Judge Koh wrote.

"Members are unable to opt out of the Sponsored Stories service,which was introduced after plaintiffs became Facebook members, andinstructions on how to disable an individual post from appearingon friends' news feeds or as a sponsored story are only availableon a buried Help Center page," the 38-page decision states.

Judge Koh dismissed unjust-enrichment claims against Facebook withprejudice, alluding to recent decision from the state appealscourt that unjust enrichment is a restitution claim, and not acause of action in itself.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part and Denying in PartDefendant's Motion to Dismiss in Fraley, et al. v. Facebook Inc.,Case No. 11-cv-01726 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

Koren Earlin, who had been accused of driving under the influence,claims that Fairview Heights charged him hundreds of dollars infees to retrieve his towed vehicles. Mr. Earlin claims, however,if a car is towed under any other circumstances, the city charges"a fraction of that amount," according to the complaint filedDec. 6 in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

On the same day in Madison and St. Clair County, five otherplaintiffs filed nearly identical lawsuits against the cities ofEdwardsville, Collinsville, Granite City, Alton and O'Fallon.

In his complaint, Mr. Earlin says he was cited and arrested onJan. 18. His car was also towed, and Mr. Earlin was also requiredto pay a $500 level one administrative fee to Fairview Heightsbefore he could retrieve his vehicle, according to the complaint.

Mr. Earlin is seeking a refund for the administrative fee he wasforced to pay, plus costs and other relief the court deems just.

Eric D. Holland and Steven L. Groves of Holland, Groves, Schnellerand Stolze in St. Louis and Brian L. Polinske of Polinske andAssociates in Edwardsville will be representing them.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers: 11-L-665, 11-L-666.

FIRST PACTRUST: Beach Signs MOU to Settle Acquisition Suits-----------------------------------------------------------Beach Business Bank, which First PacTrust Bancorp, Inc. proposedto acquire, entered into a memorandum of understanding to resolveclass action lawsuits arising from the acquisition, according tothe Company's December 14, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 13, 2011, Beach Business Bank, a California state-chartered bank ("Beach"), entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and certain nameddefendants regarding the settlement of two putative class actionlawsuits filed in the Superior Court of California, Los AngelesCounty (the "Court"), as well as the settlement of all relatedclaims that were or could have been asserted in other actions, inresponse to the announcement of the execution of an Agreement andPlan of Merger, dated as of August 30, 2011, as amended on October31, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and between First PacTrustBancorp, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("First PacTrust"), andBeach. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Beach will merge with awholly owned subsidiary of First PacTrust (the "Merger").

A purported shareholder of Beach filed a class action lawsuit inthe Court, captioned Robert K. Stevens v. James H. Gray, et al.,Case No. BC470648 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). On October 27, 2011, anotherpurported shareholder of Beach filed a class action lawsuit in theCourt captioned Ronald Durand v. Robert M. Franko, et al., CaseNo. BC472411 (Cal. Sup. Ct.). Each Complaint names as defendantsBeach, the current members of Beach's board of directors (the"Director Defendants") and First PacTrust. On November 21, 2011,these two lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit (the"Consolidated Lawsuit"). On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffsagreed to dismiss First PacTrust as a defendant.

Under the terms of the MOU, Beach, the Director Defendants and theplaintiffs have agreed to settle the Consolidated Lawsuit andrelease the defendants and their related parties (including FirstPacTrust) from all claims relating to the Merger, subject toapproval by the Court. If the Court approves the settlementcontemplated by the MOU, the Consolidated Lawsuit will bedismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Beachhas agreed to make available additional information to Beach'sshareholders. In addition, Beach has agreed not to oppose arequest by plaintiffs' counsel for fees, costs and expenses not toexceed $150,000. First PacTrust will not be responsible for thepayment of any such fees, costs and expenses. In return, theplaintiffs have agreed to dismissal of the lawsuits with prejudiceand to withdraw all motions filed in connection with suchlawsuits. If the MOU is finally approved by the Court, it isanticipated that the MOU will resolve and release all claims inall actions that were or could have been brought challenging anyaspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosuresmade in connection therewith. There can be no assurance thatBeach, the Director Defendants and the plaintiffs will ultimatelyenter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court willapprove the settlement, even if the parties were to enter intosuch stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement ascontemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid toBeach's shareholders in connection with the Merger or the timingof the special meeting of Beach's shareholders, which is scheduledfor December 22, 2011, in Hawthorne, California, to consider andvote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement, among otherthings.

First PacTrust, Beach and the Director Defendants deny each of theallegations in the Consolidated Lawsuit and believe the priordisclosures in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are adequate underapplicable law. Beach and the Director Defendants have informedFirst PacTrust that they maintain that they have complied withtheir fiduciary duty and other applicable legal duties in allrespects in connection with the Merger and any disclosureobligations in connection therewith. Beach and the DirectorDefendants have agreed to settle the Consolidated Lawsuit in orderto avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to thecompletion of the Merger. Nothing in this Current Report or anystipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of thelegal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of thedisclosures set forth herein or therein.

Environmentalist Srisuwan Janya, who heads the anti-global warminggroup, was first plaintiff representing 352 flood victims -- jointplaintiffs -- in filing suit at Thailand's Administrative Court,demanding that the defendants financially compensate thoseaffected by the flood for the actual cost of damages.

Stop Global Warming also demanded the government to ready a Bt2billion budget annually for a flood victims' rehabilitation fund.The fund would be increased by 5% annually or in accord withinflation.

The 11 defendants were the prime minister, the Flood ReliefOperations Centre (FROC) chief, the agriculture and cooperativesminister, the interior minister, the director-general of the RoyalIrrigation Department, the director-general of the DisasterPrevention and Mitigation Department, the director-general of theWater Resources Department, the director-general of the PollutionControl Department, the director of the National Disaster WarningCentre, the director-general of the Department of Public Works andTown & Country Planning and the governor of Bangkok.

The petition was filed with environment section of the CentralAdministrative Court.

Mr. Srisuwan said the group was only the first batch of the floodvictims demanding the government to accept responsibility and hebelieved similar lawsuits would follow.

He said the complaint was filed on grounds of negligence, delayeddelivery of services and committing acts damaging to the public.

This was the first 'class action' case involving hundreds ofpeople taking legal action against relevant authorities andofficials, including the prime minister, over the flood crisis.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Appeal From Settlement Order Remains Pending-------------------------------------------------------------Hewlett-Packard Company is involved in several lawsuits claimingbreach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment,deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where theplaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order toregister ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridgeunusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, notdocumented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. Theplaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false inkdepletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability ofconsumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choosecompetitive products.

The lawsuits in the Inkjet Printer Litigation are:

-- A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On January 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion for summary judgment. On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions. On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification scheduled for April 9, 2010, was postponed;

-- A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 21, 2010, but was taken off the calendar;

-- A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on May 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images and text. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-only damages class. A class certification hearing was scheduled for May 7, 2010, but was taken off the calendar; and

-- Two class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., are pending in Canada, one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006 and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP InkjetPrinter Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP entered into anagreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposedclasses, which agreement is subject to approval of the courtbefore it becomes final. Under the terms of the proposedsettlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible classmembers will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers orprinter supplies through HP's Web site. As part of the proposedsettlement, HP also agreed to provide class members withadditional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionalityand to change the content of certain software and user guidemessaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printercartridges. In addition, class counsel and the classrepresentatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses andstipends. On March 29, 2011, the court granted final approval ofthe settlement. On April 27, 2011, certain class members whoobjected to the settlement filed an appeal of the court's ordergranting final approval of the settlement.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 14,2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended October 31, 2011.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: March Hearing on Bid to Cert. "Skold" Class Set----------------------------------------------------------------A hearing on plaintiffs' motion seeking to certify a nationwideclass in the class action lawsuit captioned Skold, et al. v. IntelCorporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is currently scheduled forMarch 2, 2012, according to the Company'sDecember 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended October 31, 2011.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company isa lawsuit in which HP was joined on June 14, 2004, that is pendingin state court in Santa Clara County, California. The lawsuitalleges that Intel Corporation ("Intel") misled the public bysuppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systemsthat use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are less powerful andslower than systems using the Intel Pentium III processor andprocessors made by a competitor of Intel. The lawsuit allegesthat HP aided and abetted Intel's allegedly unlawful conduct. Theplaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' feesand costs, and certification of a nationwide class. On February27, 2009, the court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion fornationwide class certification for a third time. On August 31,2011, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court'sdenial of class certification and remanded the case back to thetrial court for further proceedings.

On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certifya nationwide class asserting claims under the California ConsumersLegal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. Ahearing on plaintiffs' motion is currently scheduled for March 2,2012.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Denies Class Certification in "Fenn" Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the District of Idaho deniedplaintiff's motion for conditional class certification in thelawsuit captioned Fenn, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company,according to Hewlett-Packard Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended October 31, 2011.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs areseeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based onallegations that various employees of HP's subsidiary, ElectronicData Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified asexempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or inviolation of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Thosematters include these:

-- Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on October 23, 2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging similar facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification of a class consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter. Plaintiffs also allege various state law class claims for misclassification, but plaintiffs have not yet sought class certification for those;

-- Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed in November 2006 in California Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in California were misclassified as exempt employees. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which, on January 7, 2008, certified a class of information technology workers in California. On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A hearing on the appeal was held in August 2011, and the decision is pending. Two other purported class actions originally filed in California Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009, allege similar facts. The Karlbom case is pending in San Diego County Superior Court but has been temporarily stayed based on the pending Steavens consolidated matter. The George case was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and had been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham and Steavens cases. On September 9, 2011, the court granted a request by the plaintiffs' counsel in the George matter to amend the plaintiffs' complaint and sever the case from the Steavens consolidated matter. The plaintiff thereafter filed his first amended complaint on October 21, 2011. On November 23, 2011, the court transferred the George matter back to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; and

-- Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action filed on February 17, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas claiming that a class of information technology and help desk support personnel were misclassified as exempt employees. No substantive rulings have been made in the case.

In addition, on May 24, 2011, a purported collective actioncaptioned Fenn, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company was filed in theUnited States District Court for the District of Idaho. Thelawsuit alleges that customer service representatives working inHP's U.S. call centers are not paid for time spent on start-up andshut-down tasks (such as booting up and shutting down theircomputers) in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. OnDecember 12, 2011, the court denied plaintiff's motion forconditional class certification.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Class Suit in California----------------------------------------------------------Hewlett-Packard Company is facing a securities class actionlawsuit in California commenced by Richard Gammel, according tothe Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31,2011.

Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., is a putativesecurities class action filed on September 13, 2011, in the UnitedStates Court for the Central District of California alleging,among other things, that from November 22, 2010, to August 18,2011, the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing material informationand making false statements about HP's business model and thefuture of webOS, the TouchPad and HP's PC business.

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit Alleging Design Defect in Printers--------------------------------------------------------------Hewlett-Packard Company is facing a consumer class action lawsuitin California alleging its printers have a design defect,according to the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the yearended October 31, 2011.

Goldblatt v. HP is a consumer class action filed against HP onDecember 1, 2011, in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California alleging that HP printers have adesign defect in the software installed on the printers whichcould allow hackers and unauthorized users to gain access to theprinters, steal personal and confidential information fromconsumers and otherwise control and cause physical damage to theprinters. The plaintiff also alleges that HP was aware of thissecurity vulnerability and failed to disclose it to consumers.The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class ofpurchasers of all HP printers and seeks unspecified damages,restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' feesand costs.

INTL FCSTONE: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Unit in Missouri-----------------------------------------------------------INTL FCStone Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuitpending in Missouri involving its subsidiary, according to theCompany's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the year endedSeptember 30, 2011.

FCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone"), a subsidiary of INTL FCStoneInc., and certain officers of FCStone were named as defendants inan action filed in the United States District Court for theWestern District of Missouri on July 15, 2008. A consolidatedamended complaint ("CAC") was subsequently filed on September 25,2009. As alleged in the CAC, the action purports to be brought asa class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stockbetween November 15, 2007, and February 24, 2009. The CAC seeksto hold defendants liable under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and concerns disclosuresincluded in FCStone's fiscal year 2008 public filings.Specifically, the CAC relates to FCStone's public disclosuresregarding an interest rate hedge, a bad debt expense arising fromunprecedented events in the cotton trading market, and certaindisclosures beginning on November 3, 2008, related to losses itexpected to incur arising primarily from a customer energy tradingaccount. FCStone and the named officers moved to dismiss theaction. Although the Court denied that motion onNovember 16, 2010, it limited the action to the public disclosuresmade on November 3, 2008, and November 4, 2008, related to theenergy trading account. As a result of the Court's order and leadplaintiffs' decision not to amend their complaint, the leadplaintiffs lost standing to prosecute the action because they werenot shareholders at the relevant time. Counsel for leadplaintiffs have since added named plaintiffs who purport topossess standing. Motion practice with respect to classcertification is currently pending before the Court pursuant towhich plaintiffs seek to certify a class on behalf of purchasersof FCStone stock between April 14, 2008, andFebruary 24, 2009. The Company and the FCStone defendantscontinue to believe the action is meritless, and intend to defendthe action vigorously.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services groupfocused on domestic and select international markets. TheCompany's services include comprehensive risk management advisoryservices for commercial customers; execution of listed futures andoptions on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range ofcommodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and basemetals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130foreign currencies; market-making in international equities; debtorigination and asset management. During the quarter ended March31, 2011, the Company changed its name from International AssetsHolding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc., following approval ofthe name change by the Company's stockholders. INTL's businesses,which include the commodities advisory and transaction executionfirm FCStone Group, Inc., serve more than 10,000 commercialcustomers in more than 100 countries through a network of officesin 12 countries around the world.

INTL FCSTONE: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Remains Pending----------------------------------------------------------------In August 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed againstFCStone Group, Inc. ("FCStone"), a subsidiary of INTL FCStoneInc., and certain directors of FCStone in the Circuit Court ofPlatte County, Missouri, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties,waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment. An amendedcomplaint was subsequently filed in May 2009 to add claims basedupon the losses sustained by FCStone arising out of a customer'senergy trading account. On July 7, 2009, the same plaintiff fileda motion for leave to amend the existing case to add a purportedclass action claim on behalf of the holders of FCStone commonstock.

On July 8, 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaintwas filed against FCStone and its directors, as well as theCompany in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. Thecomplaint alleged that FCStone and its directors breached theirfiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value inconnection with the contemplated acquisition of FCStone by theCompany. This complaint was subsequently consolidated with thecomplaint filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended consolidatedcomplaint which does not assert any claims against the Company.This complaint purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone andthe Company's behalf and against certain of FCStone current andformer directors and officers and directly against the sameindividuals. The Company, FCStone, and the defendants filedmotions to dismiss on multiple grounds. That motion is fullybriefed and pending decision.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 14,2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services groupfocused on domestic and select international markets. TheCompany's services include comprehensive risk management advisoryservices for commercial customers; execution of listed futures andoptions on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;structured over-the-counter ("OTC") products in a wide range ofcommodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and basemetals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130foreign currencies; market-making in international equities; debtorigination and asset management. During the quarter ended March31, 2011, the Company changed its name from International AssetsHolding Corporation to INTL FCStone Inc., following approval ofthe name change by the Company's stockholders. INTL's businesses,which include the commodities advisory and transaction executionfirm FCStone Group, Inc., serve more than 10,000 commercialcustomers in more than 100 countries through a network of officesin 12 countries around the world.

On August 26, 2011, a complaint was filed against the Company,certain officers and directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G.Robinson) and a former officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang) inthe United States District Court, Western District of Washingtonat Seattle on behalf of a single plaintiff Jeff Mills. Thecomplaint indicates that the plaintiff's lawyers will seek to haveit certified as a class action (the "Potential Class Action"). Italleges that the Company filed false and misleading reports withthe SEC from August 13, 2009, to August 2, 2011, primarily basedupon an amendment the Company filed to its 2010 Annual Report onForm 10-K on July 28, 2010, and a report published by the GlaucusResearch Group on August 2, 2011.

In connection with or related to the Potential Class Action: (A)On November 4, 2011, a complaint was filed by Larew P. Stouffer,an individual, in a derivative lawsuit against the Company asnominal defendant, and against certain existing officers/employeesand/or directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G.Robinson, Robert W. Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng)and certain former officers and/or directors (i.e., Edward L.Dowd, Andrew M. Leitch, Robert Okun, Joseph J. Borich, Jung MeiWang and David Lin) in the First Judicial District Court of theState of Nevada for Carson City (the "Stouffer Derivative Suit").It mainly alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties tothe Company and its shareholders, wasted corporate assets bypaying certain officers and directors who breached their fiduciaryduties, were unjustly enriched by accepting compensation whilebreaching fiduciary duties, and committed wrongful acts inconcerted action. (B) On November 15, 2011, a complaint was filedby Russell L. Bush, an individual, in a derivative lawsuit againstthe Company as nominal defendant, and against all existingdirectors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G. Robinson,Robert W. Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng) in theUnited States District Court, Western District of Washington atSeattle (the "Bush Derivative Suit", with the Stouffer DerivativeSuit, the "Derivative Suits"). It mainly alleges that thedefendants breached fiduciary duties by failing to install properinternal control and overseeing system, and were unjustly enrichedby accepting compensation while breaching fiduciary duties.

The Company says it has notified its insurance carrier of thePotential Class Action and the Derivative Suits, has retainedoutside legal counsels, and it intends to defend these lawsuitsvigorously.

But the Dec. 20 homeowner lawsuit said LPS's use of "forged,fraudulent and/or erroneous" foreclosure documents tainted theforeclosure process to the point where LPS and banks it workedwith "did not have authority to foreclose or to continue with theforeclosure process."

Besides the Nevada attorney general's lawsuit filed against LPSalleging widespread fraud in its foreclosure paperwork operations,criminal charges have been filed in Las Vegas against two LPSofficers and four notaries in what state prosecutors call a schemein which thousands of foreclosure documents were tainted by forgedsignatures and bogus notarizations.

Also named as defendants in the Dec. 20 class-action lawsuit werelenders and foreclosure trustees that work with LPS. They areBank of America, its subsidiary ReconTrust Co.; IndyMac MortgageServices, a division of OneWest Bank; and Regional Service Corp.,which acts as a foreclosure trustee.

The Dec. 20 lawsuit was filed by five homeowners and is proposedas a class action representing "countless" more plaintiffs, likelythousands. Four of the named homeowners face foreclosure and thefifth has been foreclosed on, the suit says.

The proposed class of plaintiffs is defined as borrowers in Nevadawho received foreclosure documents, called notices of default,"that were improperly executed by LPS, its predecessors or itssubsidiaries."

The Dec. 20 lawsuit seeks a court declaration that LPS and itscodefendants violated Nevada's law governing foreclosureproceedings "in that they proceeded with the foreclosure processdespite relying upon forged and falsified notices of default."

The suit also seeks a declaration that the notices of defaultissued by LPS "are null and void" and asks for an injunctionblocking LPS and the codefendants from proceeding with theallegedly tainted foreclosures.

"Plaintiffs' properties face foreclosure as a result of defendantsviolations of NRS 107.080 (the foreclosure law)," the suit says.

The suit also seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages andattorney's fees. It was filed by attorneys at the Las Vegas lawfirm Callister & Associates LLC.

An LPS spokesman said the company had no immediate comment on theDec. 20 lawsuit but reiterated its earlier statement: "LPSacknowledges the signing procedures on some of these documentswere flawed; however, the company also believes these documentswere properly authorized and their recording did not result in awrongful foreclosure."

MILLER ENERGY: Defends Five Securities Class Suits in Tennessee---------------------------------------------------------------Miller Energy Resources, Inc. is defending five securities classaction lawsuits pending in Tennessee, according to itsDecember 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

In August 2011, five class action lawsuits were filed against theCompany in the United States District Court for the EasternDistrict of Tennessee. These lawsuits make similar claims, andthe Company expects that they will be consolidated into one case.The Company has retained DLA Piper to defend it in these actions.Three motions for consolidation and appointment of a leadplaintiff have been filed, but have not been heard yet. Pursuantto stipulation, no response to the complaint is required untilafter a lead plaintiff is appointed and a consolidated complaintis filed.

On August 12, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofTennessee. The case, styled Ruben Husu, Individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated v. Miller EnergyResources, Inc. f/k/a Miller Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff, andPaul W. Boyd was filed on August 12, 2011. The Plaintiff allegestwo causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violation ofSection 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act, (2)violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The case seeksmoney damages against the Company and the other defendants, andpayment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

On August 16, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofTennessee. The case, styled James D. DiCenso, Individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated v. Miller EnergyResources, Inc. f/k/a Miller Petroleum, Inc., Deloy Miller, ScottM. Boruff, and Paul W. Boyd and David J. Voyticky. The Plaintiffalleges two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violationof Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violationof Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The case seeks moneydamages against the Company and the other defendants, and paymentof the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

On August 16, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The case isstyled Steven Arlow, Individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Miller Energy Resources, Inc. f/k/a MillerPetroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff, and Paul W. Boyd. The Plaintiffalleges two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violationof Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violationof Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The cases seek unspecifiedmoney damages against the Company and the other defendants, andpayment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

On August 18, 2011, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District ofTennessee. The case is styled Yingtao Liu, Individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated v. Miller EnergyResources, Inc. f/k/a Miller Petroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff,Paul W. Boyd, Deloy Miller, David J. Voyticky, HermanGettelfinger, Jonathan S. Gross, David M. Hall, Merrill A. McPeak,Charles Stivers, and Don A. Turkleson. The Plaintiff alleges twocauses of action against the Defendants: (1) violation of Section10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violation of Section20(a) of the Exchange Act. The case seeks unspecified moneydamages against the Company and the other defendants, and paymentof the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

On August 19, 2011, a lawsuit was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The case isstyled Brandon W. Ward, Individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Miller Energy Resources, Inc. f/k/a MillerPetroleum, Inc., Scott M. Boruff, and Paul W. Boyd. The Plaintiffalleges two causes of action against the Defendants: (1) violationof Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, (2) violationof Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The cases seek unspecifiedmoney damages against the Company and the other defendants, andpayment of the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Nurses Union Sues Over Reduced Pensions-------------------------------------------------------------Lisa Buchmeier at Courthouse News Service reports that MilwaukeeCounty illegally reduced pensions for members of a nurses union,the union claims in a class action in Milwaukee County Court.

The Wisconsin Federation of Nurses and Health Professionals Local5001 AFT AFL-CIO sued Milwaukee County and its Pension Board,fighting the law the county passed in July, which is to takeeffect on Jan. 1, 2012.

The ordinance reduced the years of service multiplier used tocalculate pensions from 2% to 1.6%.

The Milwaukee County Employees' Retirement System was establishedin 1938 to provide county workers with retirement, disability anddeath benefits.

Before the new law was enacted, nurses union members who werehired before 1982 were entitled to pensions in "an amount equal totwo (2) percent of his final average salary multiplied by thenumber of his years of services as a collective bargainingmember."

Nurses hired after 1982 originally were eligible to only receive a1.5 percent multiplier, but this was changed in 2001 to give allunion employees a 2 percent multiplier regardless of start date.

On July 28 this year, the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisorschanged the rules to say: "A member shall receive an amount equalto one and six-tenths (1.6) percent of his final average salarymultiplied by the number of his years of service, for service as amember represented by the Federation of Nurses and HealthProfessionals . . . rendered on or after January 1, 2012."

The new ordinance applies to union employees and new hires.

In its complaint, the union says that its collective bargainingagreement, issued on Aug. 23, contained changed pension benefits,without their consent.

The changed agreement for 2012 states: "For employee who becamemembers of the employees retirement system after January 1, 1971,all pension service credit earned on and after January 1, 2012,shall be credited in an amount equal to 1.6% of the member's finalaverage salary, who at the time the service credit is earned, iscovered by the terms of the agreement."

The union says the county must receive individual consents to makethe change because union members have individual benefitcontracts. Through the contracts, the union members "have vestedrights in the highest level of retirement benefits contractuallyestablished at any time during the course of active Countyservice," according to the complaint. "Those rights may not bediminished or impaired by subsequent legislation or by any othermeans without the individual members' consent, even in collectivebargaining with the Union."

The union represents a class of registered nurses, occupationaltherapists, music therapists, forensic chemists and other healthcare professionals employed by Milwaukee County. Suzanne Stoker,an occupational therapist employed since 1982 is the leadplaintiff.

They seek damages for breach of the collective bargainingagreement and violation of the Wisconsin Constitution. They seeka declaration that the new ordinance and 2012 collectivebargaining agreement are invalid, and an injunction preventing thedecreased pension benefits.

NETWORK ENGINES: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Order Pending--------------------------------------------------------------An appeal from a court order relating to Network Engines, Inc.'ssettlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit remains pending,according to the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-K filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the yearended September 30, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed on December 3, 2001, inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork against the Company and several underwriters of its July 2000initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging that the defendantsviolated federal securities laws by issuing and selling securitiespursuant to the Company's IPO without disclosing to investors thatthe underwriter defendants had solicited and received excessiveand undisclosed commissions from certain investors. The lawsuitseeks damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting ofall persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stockbetween July 13, 2000, and December 6, 2000. On July 9, 2003, aSpecial Committee of the Company's Board of Directors authorizedthe Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending claimssubstantially consistent with a memorandum of understandingnegotiated among the class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants andtheir insurers. The parties have negotiated the settlement, whichprovides, among other things, for a release of the Company and theindividual defendants for the conduct alleged in the amendedcomplaint to be wrongful.

The Company says it would agree to undertake otherresponsibilities under the settlement, including agreeing toassign, or not assert, certain potential claims that the Companymay have against the underwriters. Any direct financial impact ofthe proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company'sinsurers. Any such settlement would be subject to variouscontingencies, including approval by the court overseeing thelitigation.

On February 15, 2005, the District Court issued an Opinion andOrder preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that thedefendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing thescope of the bar order set forth in the original settlementagreement. The parties agreed to a modification narrowing thescope of the bar order, and on August 31, 2005, the District Courtissued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and settinga public hearing on its fairness, which took place on April 24,2006. On December 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals forthe Second Circuit overturned the District Court's certificationof the class of plaintiffs who are pursuing the claims that wouldbe settled in the settlement against the underwriter defendants.Thereafter, the District Court ordered a stay of all proceedingsin all of the lawsuits pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petitionto the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc and resolution of theclass certification issue. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuitdenied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing, but clarified that theplaintiffs may seek to certify a more limited class in theDistrict Court.

On June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminatingthe settlement. On October 5, 2009, the District Court issued anopinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of aproposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of thesettlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes. AnOrder and Final Judgment was entered on December 30, 2009.Various notices of appeal of the District Court's October 5, 2009,order were filed. On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who hadfiled a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the DistrictCourt withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the tworemaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals. OnDecember 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice theappeal filed by one of the two appellants based on allegedviolations of the Second Circuit's rules, including failure toserve, falsifying proofs of service, and failure to includecitations to the record.

On May 17, 2011, the Second Circuit dismissed one of the appealsand remanded the one remaining appeal to the District Court forfurther proceedings to determine whether the remaining objectorhas standing. On August 25, 2011, the District Court concludedthat the remaining objector lacks standing to object to thesettlement because he was not a class member. On September 23,2011, the remaining objector filed a Notice of Appeal of theDistrict Court's August 25, 2011 Order. That appeal remainspending. The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome ofthis lawsuit and as a result, no amounts have been accrued as ofSeptember 30, 2011.

Networks Engine Inc., as a system integrator, designs andmanufactures application platforms and appliance solutions onwhich software applications are applied to both enterprise andtelecommunications networks. The Company markets its applicationplatform solutions and services to original equipmentmanufacturers, or OEMs, and independent software vendors, or ISVs,that then deliver their software applications in the form of anetwork-ready hardware or software platform.

According to a news release, the legacy of residential schools inCanada was addressed by political and legal settlement in 2006,but individuals who attended schools in Newfoundland and Labradorwere excluded from the settlement.

The decision confirms that claims against the Government of Canadarespecting the operation of schools attended by Inuit, Innu andMetis persons and located in Cartwright, Northwest River, St.Anthony, Nain and Makkovik, can proceed as class actions.

The claims, which have not yet been proven in court, allege thatthe Government of Canada participated in a scheme to obliterateaboriginal languages, traditions and beliefs in Labrador, throughrequirement that school children reside at institutions isolatedfrom their families and communities. The claims allege negligenceand breach of fiduciary duty.

Lawyers for the class members estimate the class size at 5,000 to6,000 living members. Up to 4,000 class members are constituentsof the Nunatsiavut Government.

Spokesman Danny Pottle, an official with the NunatsiavutGovernment, called on the Government of Canada to come to thenegotiating table and drop its policy of excluding Labrador Inuit,Innu and Metis from the national reconciliation process. TheNunatsiavut Government is not a party to the class actions, butsupports the class actions as being in the interests of asubstantial number of its constituents.

OVERHILL FARMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Disqualify Plaintiff------------------------------------------------------------Overhill Farms, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on it motion todisqualify the remaining plaintiff as representative in a classaction lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company'sDecember 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the year ended October 2, 2011.

On July 1, 2009, Bohemia Agustiana, Isela Hernandez, and Ana Munozfiled a purported "class action," captioned Agustiana, et al. v.Overhill Farms, against the Company in which they asserted claimsfor failure to pay minimum wage, failure to furnish wage and hourstatements, waiting time penalties, conversion and unfair businesspractices. The plaintiffs are former employees who had beenterminated one month earlier because they had used invalid socialsecurity numbers in connection with their employment with theCompany. They filed the case in Los Angeles County on behalf ofthemselves and a class which they say includes all non-exemptproduction and quality control workers who were employed inCalifornia during the four-year period prior to filing theircomplaint. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution,injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the conversion claim, andthe motion was granted by the court on February 2, 2010.

On May 12, 2010, Alma Salinas filed a separate purported "classaction" in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Companyin which she asserted claims on behalf of herself and all othersimilarly situated current and former production workers forfailure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods,failure to pay minimum wage, failure to make payments within therequired time, unfair business practice in violation of Section17200 of the California Business and Professions Code and LaborCode Section 2698 (known as the Private Attorney General Act("PAGA")). Salinas is a former employee who had been terminatedbecause she had used an invalid social security number inconnection with her employment with the Company. Salinas soughtallegedly unpaid wages, waiting time penalties, PAGA penalties,interest and attorneys' fees, the amounts of which areunspecified. The Salinas action has been consolidated with theAgustiana action.

In about September 2011, plaintiffs Agustiana and Salinas agreedto voluntarily dismiss and waive all of their claims against theCompany. They also agreed to abandon their allegations that theycould represent any other employees in the alleged class. TheCompany did not pay them any additional wages or money.

One former employee remains as a plaintiff, Isela Hernandez. Shehas not requested the court to certify her as a classrepresentative, and no class has been certified. The Company hasasked the court to disqualify this remaining plaintiff as a classrepresentative, and her attorneys have asked the court to add fourformer employees as plaintiffs and potential classrepresentatives. These pending motions are scheduled for hearingon December 21, 2011. Three of the four proposed new plaintiffsare former employees that the Company terminated one month beforethis case was filed because they had used invalid social securitynumbers in connection with their employment with the Company. Thefourth proposed plaintiff has not worked for the Company sinceFebruary 2007.

The parties are engaged in the discovery phase of the case, andthe court has scheduled a class certification hearing date forApril 2012. The Company believes it has valid defenses to theplaintiff's remaining claims and that the Company paid all wagesdue to these employees.

POLY IMPLANT: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Breast Implants------------------------------------------------------------Rachael Brown, writing for ABC News, reports that British womenlaunched a class action against the now-defunct makers of faultybreast implants, as health fears spread across Europe over theimplants.

Some women say their implants have ruptured, others are justworried about potential health risks.

The class action comes as France debates how to handle theproblem.

Up to 30,000 French woman have PIP implants filled not with theusual material -- medical silicone -- but with industrial gradesilicone, which is cheaper but riskier.

The French government revealed last week it was consideringrecalling implants made by PIP, and would announce on Dec. 23whether it would pay for the women to have the implants removed.

Last year, the Therapeutic Goods Administration reassured womenPIP implants supplied in Australia did conform with internationalstandards.

Patients are being urged to contact their surgeon to check themake of their implants.

Former British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons presidentDouglas McGeorge says the French regulatory bodies failed to pickup the problem detected in Britain.

"Everything that was bought by the clinics I'm sure was bought ingood faith, expecting it to adhere to the recognized standardsthat were on the packet," he said.

"However the manufacturers decided to do something totallydifferent and of course there was a lag phase before it was pickedup."

The French media is reporting 10% of these implants are rupturingin their first year.

Health authorities are investigating whether they are cancerous.

A French patient died of a rare form of lymphoma last year andeight more patients have been diagnosed with cancer. An expertreport was set to be released on Dec. 23.

There are suggestions the French government will pay for 30,000women to have the implants removed.

PIP went into liquidation some time ago. Another manufacturertook over its work, but whether that company now also shoulderspast legal liability is unknown.

But the UK's health watchdog, the Medicines and Healthcareproducts Regulatory Agency, says it has found no safety issueswith the implants.

"Both from the point of view of the toxicity of the filler, we didextensive testing on this and we found no cause for concern interms of safety issues or chemical issues," MHRA medical directorSusanne Ludgate said.

"We've also looked at any association with cancer and we can findno association with any cancer.

"And thirdly because we knew women would be concerned, some ofthem have breast-fed their babies, we looked at that verycarefully with experts and again there was no cause for concern."

RALCORP HOLDINGS: Units Still Defend Class Suits in California--------------------------------------------------------------Two subsidiaries of Ralcorp Holdings, Inc. are subject to threepending lawsuits brought by former employees currently pending inseparate California state courts alleging, among other things,that employees did not receive sufficient meal breaks resulting inincorrect wage statements, unpaid overtime and untimely paymentsto terminated employees. Each of these lawsuits was filed as aclass action and seeks to include in the class certain current andformer employees of the respective subsidiary involved. In eachcase, the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, interest,attorneys' fees, compensatory and other monetary damages andinjunctive relief. No determination has been made by either courtregarding class certification and there can be no assurance as towhether a class will be certified or, if a class is certified, asto the scope of such class. The Company's liability relating tothese lawsuits cannot be reasonably estimated at this time;however, the Company does not expect that its ultimate liability,if any, will exceed $10 million.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 14,2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

SIGNATURE GROUP: Court Approved ERISA Suit Settlement in August---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia entered a final order and judgment approving SignatureGroup Holdings, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class actionlawsuit in August, according to the Company's December 12, 2011,Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

From April through June of 2007, six complaints seeking classcertification were filed in the United States District Court forthe Central District of California against the Company and variousofficers, directors and employees by participants in the Company'sprior Investment Incentive Plan, 401(k) and Employee StockOwnership Plan (collectively "the Benefit Plans") allegingviolations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974("ERISA") in connection with Company stock held by the BenefitPlans. The six complaints were consolidated in a singleproceeding. On April 15, 2010, the Court granted the Order forClass Certification under Rule 23(b)(3). On March 22, 2011, theCompany entered into a settlement stipulation whereby itsinsurance carriers will pay $21.0 million to settle the claims ofthe certified class and the Company has no further liability. OnApril 25, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of thesettlement stipulation. On August 10, 2011, the Court entered theFinal Order and Judgment approving the settlement.

SIGNATURE GROUP: Ninth Circuit Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmedthe dismissal of a third amended consolidated class actionsecurities complaint against Signature Group Holdings, Inc.,formerly known as Fremont General Corporation, according to theCompany's December 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2011.

In September 2007, three separate complaints seeking classcertification were filed in the United States District Court forthe Central District of California against Fremont and variousofficers and directors alleging violations of federal securitieslaws in connection with published statements by Fremont regardingits loan portfolio and loans held for resale during the periodfrom May 9, 2006, through February 27, 2007. These three classaction lawsuits were consolidated into a single proceeding and aconsolidated class action complaint was filed on March 3, 2008.On January 9, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Second AmendedConsolidated Class Action Securities Complaint ("SAC"). Fremontwas not a named defendant in the SAC because of its Chapter 11bankruptcy filing. The named defendants in the SAC were formerdirectors and officers of Fremont: Louis J. Rampino, Wayne R.Bailey, Patrick E. Lamb, Kyle R. Walker, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr.and James A. McIntyre. On November 29, 2009, the plaintiffs fileda Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Securities Complaint("TAC"). Fremont's potential exposure in this matter arises outof its indemnification agreements and obligations with theseindividual defendants. Fremont previously notified its insurancecarriers and requested coverage under its directors and officersinsurance policies, in which the primary insurance carrier hasaccepted coverage under a reservation of rights. On March 29,2010, the trial court entered an Order Granting Fremont's Motionto Dismiss the TAC with prejudice ("Court Order"). Plaintiffstimely appealed the Court Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit.

On November 29, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice by the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California ofthe TAC.

SOC INC: Iraq Armed Guards File Class Action Over Unpaid Wages--------------------------------------------------------------Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that a privatesecurity guard in Iraq says in a class action that his employerSOC Nevada made its employees work up to 12 hours a day, sevendays a week, in "ultrahazardous conditions" without overtime payor breaks.

"SOC's core mission changed from 'Securing Our Country' to 'LiningIts Pockets' when it began to recruit employees . . . under falsepromises of a fixed salary and scheduled with time off," leadplaintiff Karl Risinger says in the complaint in Clark CountyCourt.

"[D]ue to a lack of adequate staffing driven by corporate greed,"SOC subjected its armed guards to "undue risk by jeopardizing thephysical and psychological condition of the class members in thecourse of ultra-hazardous activities," the complaint states.

Mr. Risinger, a California resident, says he was hired in 2010 towork as an armed guard at a Baghdad military base, on a 1-yearassignment for a flat salary of $65,000.

But when he and others arrived in Iraq, he says they were toldthat the salary was "calculated based upon a $17.36 hourly rate,which hourly rate would dictate class members' actual pay basedupon 'the number of hours on your time sheet.'"

At that hourly rate, without overtime, an employee would earn$36,108 a year. A worker would have to work 72 hours a week atstraight time to earn $65,000 a year.

Mr. Risinger says he was forced to work more than 12 hours a day,7 days a week, "without meal or rest periods, and without anyovertime compensation."

He claims SOC "routinely falsified employee time sheets to reflecttime off when there was none and to show that plaintiff, andothers similarly situated, worked only 12 hours per day when infact they worked in excess of 12 hours each day."

SOC Inc., or "Securing Our Country," is a Delaware corporationdoing business in Washoe County, Nev. It provides worldwidesecurity for "individuals, domestic facilities, nuclear powerplants and military bases," according to the complaint.

It recruits former military personnel and others to work as armedguards in Iraq.

According to its Web site, "SOC is the global leader in full-service security management."

The Web site also features a toll-free "Ethics Help Line . . .that provides a confidential method to report suspected illegal orunethical behavior within the company. There will be noretributions or reprisals for reporting a suspected violation ingood faith."

STATE OF OKLAHOMA: DHS Agrees to Settle Foster Care Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Ginnie Graham, writing for Tulsa World, reports that the OklahomaCommission for Human Services voted 6-3 late on Dec. 20 to settlea federal class-action lawsuit over the state's foster caresystem.

The suit, filed three years ago, alleges abuses in the state'schild welfare system.

The commission, which governs the Department of Human Services,began meeting in executive session with Attorney General ScottPruitt and federal Magistrate T. Lane Wilson about 6:00 p.m. At10:50 p.m., the commission reconvened and voted to settle thelawsuit.

Details of the settlement are not being released until the stateContingency Review Board approves the decisions, said AssistantAttorney General Melissa Houston. She said the federal magistratehas issued a confidentiality order over the settlement, whichremains in place.

The Contingency Review Board's approval of settlements costing thestate more than $25,000 is required before they are final.

DHS Director Howard Hendrick issued a statement late on Dec. 20,saying: "While the terms of the settlement remain confidential, Ican say that the terms are unique in this kind of litigation.Both sides were willing to entertain a new approach to resolvingclass action civil rights claims involving child welfare systems.

"The strength of our defense and the excellent work our childwelfare workers do every day changed the conversation about howthese kinds of cases should be resolved. The future improvements,the details of which must yet be developed, are outlined in aframework that both sides hope will satisfy our shared desire tomeet the needs of vulnerable children and families."

Commission Chairman Brad Yarbrough said he was satisfied with thesettlement, adding: "It was in the best interest of the commissionto do so."

Mr. Chase, in voting against the settlement, said: "It presentedmore questions than answers."

The suit was filed in February 2008 in the U.S. District Court forthe Northern District of Oklahoma by Children's Rights, a NewYork-based national child-advocacy group that has filed similarclass-action suits across the country for the past two decades.

The case will not result in an award of monetary damages to theoriginal plaintiffs or the class.

A nonjury trial was scheduled to begin Feb. 21.

DHS has spent about $7 million on outside attorneys to defend thelawsuit, and commissioners approved another $2 million for futurecosts. Because it agreed to the settlement, DHS likely will haveto pay some or all of the plaintiffs' legal fees.

The original plaintiffs were nine children, ages 4 months to 16years, who allegedly suffered abuse while in DHS foster careplacements.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell expanded the lawsuit in May2009 into a class action, which has been upheld by appellatecourts. The class is defined as current and foster children; DHSreports having more than 8,000 children in the foster care system.

Through numerous attempts to have the lawsuit dismissed, the scopewas narrowed. On Dec. 1, Judge Frizzell threw out two of threecivil rights claims in the complaint.

However, the plaintiffs' side said it was happy with the decisionbecause its "core claim" dealing with foster children's due-process rights survived.

On Dec. 16, Judge Frizzell rejected a DHS motion to dismiss thelawsuit, which DHS attorneys had argued is improper becausechildren involved are part of ongoing juvenile proceedings inOklahoma district courts.

Judge Frizzell stated that most of the measures requested by theplaintiffs do not interfere with state court proceedings.

In court filings, Children's Rights claimed that foster childrenwere scalded in bath water, sexually molested, beaten with treeswitches and belts and hit in the face.

In his earlier order certifying the case as a class action, JudgeFrizzell pointed to allegations of the commission's lack ofmonitoring efforts, with many references to depositions of thecommissioners.

Commissioners testified they meet for two to three hours a monthand do not set the agenda, but consider information "selected andprovided" by Mr. Hendrick and senior DHS managers, the orderstates.

Mr. Hendrick testified no commissioners in recent history haveasked him for a report on anything related to child welfare andnone approached him about any data "troubling to them," it states.

Commissioners said they were not told the DHS child welfaredivision after 2002 lost its national accreditation, which isrequired by statute. They also could not recall being given orasking for information related to caseloads, shelter populationnumbers or visitation numbers.

Mr. DeVaughn, a former commission chairman, testified that hecould not remember if the oversight board was given reports onrate of abuse in care, number of placements per child, lengths ofstay in custody, out-of-county placements, family separations andshortage of foster-care homes.

Commissioners came under criticism earlier this year after somehigh-profile child deaths where DHS workers were involved.

Gov. Mary Fallin appointed two new members -- former OklahomaCounty District Attorney Wes Lane of Oklahoma City and Yarbrough,a businessman who took over as commission chairman in October.

The lawsuit points to high caseloads as leading to abuses, and italleges that the commission failed to provide enough oversight toprotect children.

Accrediting body standards call for no more than 18 children percaseworker, or eight per caseworker in the case of special needschildren.

Caseloads reported by DHS in March ranged from between 20 childrenand more than 30 children per worker.

DHS has 1,327 employees in its Child Welfare Division and 1,117 ofthose are front-line workers who carry caseloads. An order byJudge Frizzell last month noted that "defendants' own expert,Robin Arnold-Williams, concluded that DHS does not accuratelymeasure caseloads and that its caseloads exceed professionallyaccepted standards."

"The court finds that plaintiffs have presented 'significantproof' that DHS has a policy or practice of failing to adequatelymonitor the safety of plaintiff children causing significant harmand risk of harm to their safety," his order states.

STATER BROS: Awaits Court Approval of "Martinez" Suit Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. is awaiting court approval of itssettlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by Diego De JesusMartinez, according to the Company's December 14, 2011, Form 10-Kfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for theyear ended September 25, 2011.

On November 5, 2010, an action by Diego De Jesus Martinez wasfiled in the Superior Court of the State of California for theCounty of Los Angeles against Markets ("Martinez Case") seekingindividual and potential class action monetary damages for allegeddiscrepancies between the actual time worked by certain employeesand the amounts recorded on Markets' time clock reports on payrollrecords. On October 26, 2011, following a mediation, the MartinezCase was settled subject to court approval of the settlement andthe full settlement amount has been recorded in the Company'sconsolidated financial statements for the fiscal year endedSeptember 25, 2011.

TAKEDA PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over ACTOS Bladder Cancer Risk----------------------------------------------------------------On Dec. 21, 2011, the law firm of Rochon Genova LLP issued a classaction on behalf of users of a diabetes drug ACTOS (pioglitazonehydrochloride) against the manufacturers and distributors ofACTOS, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, and its affiliates, and EliLilly.

ACTOS was approved for sale in Canada in August, 2000 to controlblood sugar levels in people with Type 2 (non insulin-dependant)diabetes. A June 2011 study reported to the FDA found a clearlink between pioglitazone and increased bladder cancer risk. As aresult, the FDA in the U.S. issued a warning, now incorporated onthe drug's label, that use of ACTOS for more than one year may beassociated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. French andGerman drug regulators suspended sales of ACTOS entirely followingthe results of similar studies in those countries.

The class action, filed with the Ontario Superior Court ofJustice, alleges, among other things, that the defendants knew orought to have known that ACTOS materially increases the risks ofbladder cancer and failed to disclose those risks in a timelymanner and have failed to recall the drug.

The proposed Representative Plaintiff for users of ACTOS is theEstate of a Toronto woman who passed away in April 2011 after anover two-year battle with bladder cancer. She had been prescribedACTOS in 2002. Her daughter, a nurse in Toronto, is the proposedRepresentative Plaintiff representing the family members of thosewho are suffering or have died from bladder cancer attributable toACTOS. "My mother suffered greatly and was often in excruciatingpain from the time of her cancer diagnosis to her death. Giventhe other widely available alternatives to control Type 2diabetes, my mother never would have taken ACTOS had she knownthat it would increase her risks of developing bladder cancer."

The allegations raised in the claim have not yet been proven incourt. The plaintiff and the prospective class members arerepresented by the Toronto based law firm of Rochon Genova LLP.

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Asylum "Clock" Problems--------------------------------------------------------------The American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center filed anationwide class action lawsuit against U.S. Citizenship andImmigration Services and the Executive Office for ImmigrationReview in federal court in Seattle. The lawsuit allegeswidespread problems with the asylum "clock" -- the system that thegovernment uses to determine when immigrants with pending asylumapplications become eligible to obtain work authorization in theUnited States. The class certification motion describes thenationwide impact of these policies.

The complaint, co-filed with the Northwest Immigrants RightsProject, Gibbs Houston Pauw, and the Massachusetts Law ReformInstitute, was submitted on behalf of untold numbers of asylumapplicants wrongfully denied work authorization due to unlawfulagency policies and practices. The named plaintiffs includeasylum seekers who have pursued their cases for years without workauthorization--including a man from China who initially filed hisasylum application in 2003.

With limited exceptions, federal law requires USCIS to grant workauthorization to any person with an asylum application pending for180 days. In calculating this period, however, USCIS relies ondeterminations made by immigration judges who work for EOIR. As aresult, arbitrary EOIR policies on when the "clock" should startand stop--combined with growing backlogs in U.S. immigrationcourts--have unlawfully prevented asylum seekers from working. Thesuit alleges these policies violate the Constitution, federalstatutes, and governing regulations.

"This lawsuit targets a problem that has plagued asylum applicantsfor far too long," said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director ofthe American Immigration Council. "Asylum seekers who have fledpersecution in their native countries and have made good faithefforts to comply with the asylum process should not bearbitrarily deprived of the ability to earn a living while theirapplications are pending. This lawsuit challenges thelongstanding disregard for basic due process protections for thisvulnerable population."

WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Redemption of Wachovia Trust Securities--------------------------------------------------------------James L. Turkle Trust, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, a DelawareCorporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-06494 (N.D. Calif., December 20,2011) arises out of the redemption by Wells Fargo of the WachoviaCapital Trust X 7.85% Trust Preferred Securities on October 3,2011. On December 31, 2008, as a result of its merger withWachovia Corporation, Wells Fargo agreed to assume all outstandingguarantee obligations of the TruPS.

Pursuant to the terms of the February 1, 2006 Indenture, Wachovia(and subsequently Wells Fargo) was required to make quarterlyinterest payments to Wachovia Capital Trust X, which paymentswould then be distributed to owners of the TruPS, includingPlaintiff. The Plaintiff, as a third party beneficiary of theIndenture, asserts class action claims against Wells Fargo forbreach of the Indenture and breach of the implied covenant of goodfaith and fair dealing contained therein.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Mulvane, Kansas, and owned 100shares of Wachovia Capital Trust X TruPS on October 3, 2011.Wells Fargo is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place ofbusiness in San Francisco, California. Non-party Wachovia CapitalTrust X is a statutory trust organized under the laws of Delaware.

The rulings by U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose in the WestPenn Allegheny Health System lawsuit and U.S. District Judge CathyBissoon in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center lawsuitmeans that any employees who want to pursue their claims will haveto do so in individual lawsuits.

The basic claim in both class-action lawsuits was that thehospitals automatically deducted a half hour from an employee'stime records even when he or she worked through a meal break, ineffect forcing the employee to work without compensation.

The judges said that many randomly selected plaintiffs dropped outof the lawsuits when asked to document that they had been forcedto work through meal breaks and many of those who remained in thelawsuit demonstrated that the hospitals were crediting the extratime when employees notified supervisors that they had not takenmeal breaks.

Gloria Kreps, spokeswoman for UPMC, said the hospital system hadno immediate comment on the ruling. A West Penn spokesperson andNelson Thomas, the lawyer whose Rochester, N.Y., law firmrepresents the plaintiffs, couldn't immediately be reached forcomment.

WPCS INT'L: "McKean" and "Rapozo" Suits Consolidted in October---------------------------------------------------------------A Pennsylvania court granted in October 2011 WPCS InternationalIncorporated's motion to transfer the class action lawsuitcommenced by Edwin M. McKean and consolidate it into the lawsuitcaptioned Rapozo vs. WPCS, according to the Company'sDecember 14, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended October 31, 2011.

On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed aderivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court ofCommon Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the Companyand its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint. The case isRalph Rapozo v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al., DocketNo. 11-06837. In this action, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin theproposed transaction in which Multiband would acquire all of theoutstanding shares of the Company. The plaintiff alleges, amongother things, that the consideration to be paid for suchacquisition by Multiband Corporation is inadequate, and that theindividual board members failed to engage in an honest and fairsales process for the Company and failed to disclose materialinformation for the purposes of advancing their own interests overthose of the Company and its shareholders. To that end, theplaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against theCompany's board of directors. In the event that the proposedtransaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company andMultiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty forwhich he seeks unspecified money damages. WPCS' time to answer ormove with respect to the Complaint has not yet expired. However,the Company and its directors deny the material allegations ofthis complaint and intend to vigorously defend this action.

On June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed aderivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court ofCommon Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the Companyand its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint. The casewas Robert Shepler v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al,Docket No. 11-06838. On August 11, 2011, the Shepler case wasconsolidated into the Rapozo vs. WPCS case.

On June 30, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company filed aderivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court ofCommon Pleas of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, against theCompany and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint. Thecase is Edwin M. McKean v. WPCS International Incorporated, etal., Civil Action No. 3085. WPCS filed a motion to transfer thiscase to Chester County and consolidate into the Rapozo vs. WPCScase, which the Court granted on October 18, 2011.

WSFS FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Overdraft Fees-Related Suit in Del.--------------------------------------------------------------A subsidiary of WSFS Financial Corporation is facing a purportedclass action lawsuit in Delaware over its assessment andcollection of overdraft fees on checking accounts, the Companydisclosed in its December 12, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 18, 2011, a purported class action ("Joy v. WilmingtonSavings Fund Society, FSB" (WSFS Bank, a subsidiary of WSFSFinancial Corporation) Case N. N11C-11-185 JRJ) was filed in theDelaware Superior Court for New Castle County. The Complaintchallenges WSFS Bank's practices relating to its assessment andcollection of overdraft fees on checking accounts. Damages aresought for the statute of limitations period applicable to theclaims made in the lawsuit, and include restitution of overdraftfees paid to the Company, actual damages allegedly sustained bycustomers, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. This case isnearly identical to numerous other lawsuits that have been broughtby a small handful of class action litigators. The Company hasdiscovered more than 120 other overdraft lawsuits that recentlyhave been brought against US banks.

The Company strongly believes that its overdraft practices arefair to its customers and comply fully with all applicable lawsand regulations. The Company believes this lawsuit is withoutmerit and intends to vigorously defend the pending action.

* Tightened Fare Ad Rules Won't Affect Class Action v. Airlines---------------------------------------------------------------Jane Seyd, writing for North Shore News, reports that thegovernment of Canada said it was moving to add more transparencyto the way airlines tack fees on to their ticket prices. Thechange to the law, however, is unlikely to affect a class actionsuit already launched in North Vancouver that takes aim at whatcomplainants say are misleading pricing practices.

Class-action lawsuits against several airlines launched by NorthVancouver law firm Poyner Baxter this year likely won't beaffected by recently-announced changes to the way airlines areallowed to advertise their fares.

On Dec. 16, the federal government announced it will bring in newregulations in 2012 forcing airlines to list the full cost ofairline tickets -- including extra fees, surcharges and taxes --in their ads.

The move comes four years after the passage of the CanadaTransportation Act, which essentially paved the way for the newrules and passed in June 2007.

Since then, consumer groups have complained about the delay inputting new advertising rules into practice.

It likely won't be until the end of next year, however, that thechanges are obvious to consumers -- after the government finishesconsulting with the airlines.

Lawyer Jim Poyner, who has launched lawsuits against severalairlines for misleading travellers about the nature of fees addedto their ticket price, said it's unlikely the new rules willchange anything for his clients.

While the class action suits targeted added fees, Mr. Poyner saidthe cases have focused mainly on the airline practice of callingthe additional charges "taxes" -- implying the money was going togovernment or a third party -- while in many cases the airlinesjust kept them.

"We say what they were doing was misleading and deceptive," saidMr. Poyner.

Cases still before the courts include those against BritishAirways, Air Canada, Lufthansa, Cathay Pacific, Delta Airlines andJapan Airlines.

The federal government said on Dec. 16 changes to the way faresare advertised will result in greater transparency for consumersin the future.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.